BERT HOWE
  • Nationwide: (800) 482-1822    
    housing expert witness Allegan County Michigan custom home expert witness Allegan County Michigan condominium expert witness Allegan County Michigan Subterranean parking expert witness Allegan County Michigan high-rise construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan hospital construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan Medical building expert witness Allegan County Michigan townhome construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan multi family housing expert witness Allegan County Michigan tract home expert witness Allegan County Michigan office building expert witness Allegan County Michigan condominiums expert witness Allegan County Michigan mid-rise construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan concrete tilt-up expert witness Allegan County Michigan parking structure expert witness Allegan County Michigan institutional building expert witness Allegan County Michigan low-income housing expert witness Allegan County Michigan landscaping construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan structural steel construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan retail construction expert witness Allegan County Michigan production housing expert witness Allegan County Michigan custom homes expert witness Allegan County Michigan
    Arrange No Cost Consultation
    Construction Expert Witness Builders Information
    Allegan County, Michigan

    Michigan Builders Right To Repair Current Law Summary:

    Current Law Summary: Article 24 of the Occupational Code dictates that a complaint against a builder must be filed with the Department of Consumer and Industry Service within 18 months of the completion, occupancy or purchase of a residence. If building official determines complaint has merit, "Notice to Respondent: sent to provide builder with opportunity to repair; additional administrative procedures follow to conclusion; Individual townships have local rules regarding properties; Example: Bloomfield has mandated that structures must meet ongoing minimum maintenance standards.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Licensing
    Guidelines Allegan County Michigan

    Residential contractors need to be licensed. License required for plumbing and electrical trades.


    Construction Expert Witness Contractors Building Industry
    Association Directory
    Home Builders Association of Livingston County
    Local # 2355
    132 E Grand River Ave
    Brighton, MI 48116
    http://www.hbalc.com

    Building Industry Association of Southeastern Michigan
    Local # 2328
    2075 Walnut Lake Road
    West Bloomfield, MI 48323
    http://www.builders.org

    Home Builders Association of Barry County
    Local # 2310
    2700 S Broadway
    Hastings, MI 49058
    http://www.barrycountyhba.com

    Greater Lansing Home Builders & Remodelers Assoc
    Local # 2352
    2937 Atrium Dr Ste 201
    Okemos, MI 48864
    http://www.glhba.org

    Battle Creek Associated Home Builders
    Local # 2312
    P.O. Box 2197
    Battle Creek, MI 49016
    http://www.bcahb.org/

    MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
    Local # 2300
    6427 Centurion Dr #150B
    Lansing, MI 48917
    http://www.buildingmichigan.org

    Home Builders Association of the Holland Area
    Local # 2340
    211 Lincoln Ave
    Holland, MI 49423
    http://www.hbaholland.com


    Construction Expert Witness News and Information
    For Allegan County Michigan

    Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office

    Defining Catastrophic Injury Claims

    Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction

    Updates to Residential Landlord Tenant Law

    Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety

    Call to Conserve Power Raises Questions About Texas Grid Reliability

    FEMA, Congress Eye Pre-Disaster Funding, Projects

    Common Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-for-Delay Clause

    Bribe Charges Take Toll on NY Contractor

    New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st

    Will COVID-19 Permanently Shift the Balance between Work from Home and the Workplace?

    Snooze You Lose? Enforcement of Notice and Timing Provisions

    The Future Looks Bright for Construction in 2015

    Why Death Follows Faulty Edge Fall Protection–And How to Fix It

    Builders Risk/Construction All Risks and Delay in Start-Up Coverage for Large Energy Projects: Protecting Revenue Before Operations Begin

    The Moment of Truth

    Groundbreaking on New Boulder Neighborhood

    OIRA Best Practices for Administrative Enforcement and Adjudicative Actions

    General Contractor Intervening to Compel Arbitration Per the Subcontract

    Emergency Paid Sick Leave and FMLA Leave Updates in Response to COVID-19

    Gardeners in the City of the Future: An Interview with Eric Baczuk

    Is Arbitration Always the Answer?

    How to Lose Your Contractor’s License in 90 Days (or Less): California and Louisiana

    Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant

    Design, Legal and Accounting all Fight a War on Billable Hours After the Advent of AI

    Fire Protection You Can Trust Starts With the Right Testing

    Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results

    Seventh Circuit Finds “Additional Insured” Requirements Met Where Non-Party Subcontractor Was Proximate Cause of Underlying Injuries

    Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary

    Lawsuit Gives Teeth to Massachusetts Pay Law

    City Council Authorizes Settlement of Basement Flooding Cases

    Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law

    U.K. Construction Resumes Growth Amid Resurgent Housing Activity

    Kansas Man Caught for Construction Scam in Virginia

    Elevators Take Sustainable Smart Cities to the Next Level

    Insured's Collapse Claim Survives Summary Judgment

    Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued

    Federal Court Again Confirms No Coverage For Construction Defects in Hawaii

    Consult with Counsel when Preparing Construction Liens

    California Booms With FivePoint New Schools: Real Estate

    Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”

    New Jersey Law Firm Announces $4 Million Settlement from Construction Site Accident

    California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

    Get Smarter About Electric Construction Equipment

    Reasonable Expectations – Pennsylvania’s Case by Case Approach to the Sutton Rule

    Mitigating the Consequences of Labor Unrest on Construction Projects

    Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment

    Looking for a Way Out

    Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

    On-Site Supersensing and the Future of Construction Automation – Discussion with Aviad Almagor
    Corporate Profile

    ALLEGAN COUNTY MICHIGAN CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
    DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

    Leveraging from approximately five thousand construction and design related expert designations, the Allegan County, Michigan Construction Expert Directory delivers a streamlined multi-disciplinary expert retention and support solution to builders and construction claims professionals concerned with construction defect, scheduling, and delay matters. BHA provides construction claims investigation and expert services to the industry's leading construction practice groups, Fortune 500 builders, real estate investment trusts, risk managers, owners, as well as a variety of municipalities and government offices. Utilizing in house resources which include building envelope and design experts, forensic engineers, forensic architects, and construction cost and scheduling consultants, the construction experts group brings specialized experience and local capabilities to Allegan County and the surrounding areas.

    Allegan County Michigan construction scheduling expert witnessAllegan County Michigan ada design expert witnessAllegan County Michigan construction project management expert witnessAllegan County Michigan construction claims expert witnessAllegan County Michigan civil engineer expert witnessAllegan County Michigan testifying construction expert witnessAllegan County Michigan soil failure expert witness
    Construction Expert Witness News & Info
    Allegan County, Michigan

    Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes

    May 14, 2026 —
    Nevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000. By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3]. Reprinted courtesy of Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

    D.C. Circuit Upholds EPA’s CERCLA Hazardous-Substance Designations for PFAS as State-Law Settlements Highlight Expanding Liability Landscape

    September 15, 2026 —
    On August 18, 2026, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the 2024 designation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund). (See Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. EPA, No. 24-1193 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 2026).) The decision leaves EPA’s PFOA and PFOS hazardous substance designations in place and provides guidance on the scope of EPA’s authority to make future hazardous substances designations under CERCLA Section 102(a). The decision also likely resolves a challenge to the rule that has spanned two presidential administrations. After taking office, the Trump administration had obtained an abeyance of the litigation challenging the Biden-era rule while EPA reconsidered its position. In September 2025, EPA informed the court that it had decided to retain the designations, while signaling that it would work with Congress and industry to address CERCLA liability concerns for “passive receivers.” The litigation then resumed, with the current Administration defending the rule. Reprinted courtesy of Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

    Underlying Complaint Alleges Possibility of Coverage, Triggering Duty to Defend

    September 15, 2026 —
    In a dispute among insurers for various defendants in the underlying case regarding the providing of a defense, the Second Circuit vacated, in part, the district court’s judgment and remanded the case. New Your Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 18087 (2nd Cir. June 23, 2026). Mary Guzman, who worked for a cleaning company, PBM, LLC, alleged that she was injured when a glass panel in a revolving door fell onto her as she cleaned the door. She filed suit in state court against the owners of the building as well as the lessee of the fifteenth floor where the accident occurred, Bank of New York Mellon (Bank). She alleged the owners and the Bank were negligent in creating the dangerous condition that caused her injury. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
    Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

    Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (7/8/26) – Data Centers Negotiate Flexibility for Speed, Hotel Deal Activities Focus on Luxury, and DC Sues Apartment Owners

    July 20, 2026 —
    In our latest roundup, rail projects gain steam across the U.S., AI optimizes building operations, a modular approach speeds data center construction, and more!
    • Hyperscalers want their data centers online, and utilities want to provide interconnections, but both are still looking for common operating guidelines. (Herman K. Trabish, Construction Dive)
    • Contractors are taking advantage of multibillion-dollar train and transit contracts, even as funding challenges create hurdles for project execution. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
    • Although hospitality and leisure M&A deal volume was down 2.5% in the first half of 2026 compared to the prior six months, investors are concentrating on the upper end of the market, including luxury hotels, wellness resorts and gaming, or “data-rich,” platforms. (Noor Adatia, Hotel Dive)
    Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

    Project Labor Agreements: A New Bid Protest Forum Split

    May 14, 2026 —
    Advertisements often include a disclaimer: “individual results may vary.” Similarly, lawyers are notorious for saying “it depends.” The mandatory Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) regulations have recently placed into context this adage as it applies to federal contract bid protests, with very different results depending on which forum – the Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) versus the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) – different contractors have selected to bring PLA bid protests. Over the last two years, over 30 protesters have successfully achieved removal of mandatory PLAs from large-scale federal construction contracts based on two landmark bid protest decisions issued by the COFC. Similar challenges to PLAs at the GAO, however, have not been successful in removing PLAs, highlighting an emerging trend that the COFC is often a more effective relief forum than GAO for government construction contractors. Reprinted courtesy of Dirk D. Haire, Burr & Forman LLP, David P.J. Timm, Burr & Forman LLP and Michael J. Brewer, Burr & Forman LLP Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@burr.com Mr. Timm may be contacted at dtimm@burr.com Mr. Brewer may be contacted at mbrewer@burr.com Read the full story...

    California Poised for the Most Significant Residential Construction Defect Reforms in Decades

    September 01, 2026 —
    The California Legislature is considering legislation that would dramatically alter the landscape of residential construction defect litigation. Assembly Bill 1903, currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee, proposes extensive amendments to California's Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895-945.5) that would substantially strengthen procedural protections for builders while narrowing the scope of recoverable construction defect claims. If enacted, the legislation would affect virtually every stage of a construction defect dispute- from the initial notice of claim through litigation and settlement- and would introduce an entirely new certification process for newly constructed condominium projects. This article details some of the most significant proposed changes. Higher Burden for Construction Defect Plaintiffs Perhaps the most consequential change is the bill's modification of the proof required to establish liability. current law generally requires a claimant to demonstrate the residence fails to satisfy one of the statutory performance standards established under the Right to Repair Act. AB1903 would instead require claimants to establish three separate elements:
    • A violation of an applicable statutory performance standard;
    • The violation caused appreciable, present, non-speculative physical damage to another building component; and
    • The violation resulted from the original construction.
    Reprinted courtesy of Thomas D. Fama, Wood Smith Henning Berman and Andrew J. Mallon, Wood Smith Henning Berman Mr. Fama may be contacted at tfama@wshblaw.com Mr. Mallon may be contacted at amallon@wshblaw.com Read the full story...

    Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

    May 14, 2026 —
    If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
    Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

    GRSM Ranked Among Texas’ 50 Largest Law Firms by Texas Lawyer

    August 03, 2026 —
    Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized byTexas Lawyer in its 2026 Texas 100 ranking, earning the No. 49 spot among the state’s largest law firms by attorney headcount. The annual report spotlights the continued strength of Texas’ legal market, with firms across the state collectively increasing lawyer headcount by 2% in 2025. “Texas continues to be one of the country’s most thriving legal and business markets, and we are proud to be recognized among the state’s largest law firms,” said Laura De Santos, Regional Oversight Partner for Texas. “Our continued growth shows the confidence our clients place in us, the exceptional talent of our attorneys, and our commitment to delivering seamless, high-quality legal services throughout Texas and across our 50-state platform.” Read the full story...
    Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani